L'ajustement mutuel dans le fonctionnement organique du système multiorganisationnel d'aide et de services aux sans‐abri de Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire : Notre étude de l'organisation du secteur de l'aide et des services aux sans‐abri à Montréal Centre met en lumière un système multiorganisationnel de services de santé et de services sociaux qui n'est pas intégré hiérarchiquement dans son ensemble et qui n'est pas soumis à une « entente de gestion et d'imputabilité» globale propre à une gestion fondée sur la normalisation des résultats. L'étude présente un système d'ensemble de type « organique » plutôt que bureaucratique, largement fondé sur des ajustements mutuels entre les nombreux acteurs publics et « communautaires » de ce secteur. La coordination des services se réalise alors essentiellement dans les interactions entre les intervenants alors qu'ils accomplissent leur travail, et ce avec le soutien des gestionnaires. À l'aide de nombreux extraits d'entrevues, nous étudions le fonctionnement de ce système « organique » sous la forme de trois catégories de processus d'ajustement mutuel qui se superposent et se complètent pour assurer la valeur des services : disjoint unilatéral, conjoint bilatéral et conjoint multilatéral . Selon les sciences de l'organisation, un tel système est potentiellement mieux adaptéà composer avec la complexité des connaissances et des valeurs caractéristiques des services humains, qu'un à système formellement intégré et contrôlé par des règles, des indicateurs et des cibles quantifiables. Abstract: This study of the organization of the sector dedicated to providing aid and services to the homeless in Central Montreal reveals a multiorganizational health and social services system that is neither hierarchically integrated as a whole nor subject to a comprehensive “management and accountability agreement” specific to standardized results‐based management. The study details a comprehensive system that is “organic,” rather than bureaucratic, and broadly organized based on mutual adjustments among the numerous public and “community” practitioners in this sector. The coordination of services is therefore essentially achieved through the interaction of the workers as they perform their jobs, with the support of management. This study draws on a number of extracts from interviews to examine how this “organic” system operates, in the form of three distinct processes of mutual adjustment that are superimposed and complementary to ensure the value of the services: “unilateral disjoined,”“bilateral joined” and “multilateral joined.” According to organizational science, this type of system is potentially more likely to address the complexities inherent in the knowledge and values that are characteristic of human services than a formally integrated system that is controlled by rules, indicators and quantifiable targets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".